|
Post by bartlesby on Jan 17, 2023 19:18:38 GMT
Where the fuck did this come from? Over the last few weeks I've been seeing these people, but previously never heard this complaint. There are a couple reasons for the backlash. The first reason is more pragmatic and doesn't go too deep into philosophical matters: AI can be directed to copy the style of individual artists. In fact, AI generation relies on copying other people to even function. If you're an artist, your own creative vision and ability is what puts food on your table. If AI can successfully generate art in your style for free in a matter of minutes, you're potentially out of a job. That's the big fear among artists. The second reason is more philosophical and comes down to what constitutes art. If some dude can type in "beach babes riding rocket-powered hot dogs in space" and generate an image as good as a human artist tasked with the same project, is it still art? Is it still something creative? A large majority people would immediately say no. If for no other reason than because a computer did all the work. I'm not going to go deep on the "What is Art?" debate here but people generally frown upon copying and laziness passed off as human expression. If it's coming up more in discourse, that's because AI has been advancing by leaps and bounds and has gotten to the point where it can mimic a human convincingly. That's a little scary.
You know, it's like the line from Jurassic Park: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."It's also like the line from The Thing: "So, how do we know who's human? If I was an imitation, a perfect imitation, how would you know if it was really me?"Good night and much love.
|
|
|
Post by stammer/head on Jan 18, 2023 11:04:07 GMT
Where the fuck did this come from? Over the last few weeks I've been seeing these people, but previously never heard this complaint. There are a couple reasons for the backlash. The first reason is more pragmatic and doesn't go too deep into philosophical matters: AI can be directed to copy the style of individual artists. In fact, AI generation relies on copying other people to even function. If you're an artist, your own creative vision and ability is what puts food on your table. If AI can successfully generate art in your style for free in a matter of minutes, you're potentially out of a job. That's the big fear among artists. The second reason is more philosophical and comes down to what constitutes art. If some dude can type in "beach babes riding rocket-powered hot dogs in space" and generate an image as good as a human artist tasked with the same project, is it still art? Is it still something creative? A large majority people would immediately say no. If for no other reason than because a computer did all the work. I'm not going to go deep on the "What is Art?" debate here but people generally frown upon copying and laziness passed off as human expression. If it's coming up more in discourse, that's because AI has been advancing by leaps and bounds and has gotten to the point where it can mimic a human convincingly. That's a little scary.
You know, it's like the line from Jurassic Park: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."It's also like the line from The Thing: "So, how do we know who's human? If I was an imitation, a perfect imitation, how would you know if it was really me?"Good night and much love. There is also at least one site (or app) that can create reviews in the style of critics using reviews that are already on the internet. They did this with Mark Kermode and, although he enjoyed them, he did point out that it can’t create a proper review for something he hadn’t seen yet.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Jan 21, 2023 22:49:21 GMT
There are a couple reasons for the backlash. The first reason is more pragmatic and doesn't go too deep into philosophical matters: AI can be directed to copy the style of individual artists. In fact, AI generation relies on copying other people to even function. If you're an artist, your own creative vision and ability is what puts food on your table. If AI can successfully generate art in your style for free in a matter of minutes, you're potentially out of a job. That's the big fear among artists. The second reason is more philosophical and comes down to what constitutes art. If some dude can type in "beach babes riding rocket-powered hot dogs in space" and generate an image as good as a human artist tasked with the same project, is it still art? Is it still something creative? A large majority people would immediately say no. If for no other reason than because a computer did all the work. I'm not going to go deep on the "What is Art?" debate here but people generally frown upon copying and laziness passed off as human expression. If it's coming up more in discourse, that's because AI has been advancing by leaps and bounds and has gotten to the point where it can mimic a human convincingly. That's a little scary.
You know, it's like the line from Jurassic Park: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."It's also like the line from The Thing: "So, how do we know who's human? If I was an imitation, a perfect imitation, how would you know if it was really me?"Good night and much love. There is also at least one site (or app) that can create reviews in the style of critics using reviews that are already on the internet. They did this with Mark Kermode and, although he enjoyed them, he did point out that it can’t create a proper review for something he hadn’t seen yet. I think that's just a matter of currently available AI scope. What I mean is that there isn't currently AI which has been fed a steady diet of movies and cross-referenced what various critics wrote about them. I have absolutely no doubt that's in development, of course; studios would love having that technology. They would love if a computer could analyze a movie frame-by-frame and in its entirety and determine what will appeal to a wider audience. It's cheap and they're not in it for the art. That's why so many movies copy each other as it is. That could also be used to copy the voice of an individual critic because critique is often referential and comparative. People base their opinions around other media they enjoyed and there is nobody more vocal about that than the critics, meaning you can make a very good guess with AI that has seen what they've written about other movies and analyzed those movies itself. Realistically, that tech is coming down the pipe no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by stammer/head on Jan 22, 2023 0:01:14 GMT
There is also at least one site (or app) that can create reviews in the style of critics using reviews that are already on the internet. They did this with Mark Kermode and, although he enjoyed them, he did point out that it can’t create a proper review for something he hadn’t seen yet. I think that's just a matter of currently available AI scope. What I mean is that there isn't currently AI which has been fed a steady diet of movies and cross-referenced what various critics wrote about them. I have absolutely no doubt that's in development, of course; studios would love having that technology. They would love if a computer could analyze a movie frame-by-frame and in its entirety and determine what will appeal to a wider audience. It's cheap and they're not in it for the art. That's why so many movies copy each other as it is. That could also be used to copy the voice of an individual critic because critique is often referential and comparative. People base their opinions around other media they enjoyed and there is nobody more vocal about that than the critics, meaning you can make a very good guess with AI that has seen what they've written about other movies and analyzed those movies itself. Realistically, that tech is coming down the pipe no matter what. All they’ll have to do next is kill the critics. Pity Vincent Price and Diana Rigg are no longer around to carry out that task.
|
|
|
Post by stammer/head on Mar 14, 2023 22:09:37 GMT
This means war!
|
|